Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[MattusMaximus]

I just did a very rough extrapolation on predicting how many people would likely sign up for health insurance through the ACA, basing the calculation on the performance of the MA health care law (which seems reasonable, seeing as how it's the only real data point).

From what I've read, in the first month of the MA law only about 123 people signed up, but by the time open enrollment ended something like 36,000 people had enrolled. That means that in the first month of enrollment, only 0.342% of the people who ultimately signed up had enrolled.

If we apply these numbers to the ACA, let's see what we get:

First month enrollment = 106,000
Projected enrollment by April 2014 = 106,000/0.00342 = 30,994,000

Whoa! That's pretty staggering, so much so that I'm willing to call it a big overshoot. So let's trim that number by a big chunk... take only 1/4 of it, which gets us...

30,994,000 / 4 = 7,748,500

So even if we seriously handicap the projection, it seems that roughly 7 million+ (nearly 8 million) people are likely to sign up for health care coverage via the ACA. And, if I recall correctly, wasn't it around the 7 million mark that the government was hoping to hit by the end of March?

No wonder the GOP is freaking out

 

[Fudbucker]

"Many millions". Sounds good to me. Shall we come back to this claim in April, and see who has egg on their faces?

Proposed ground rules:

• "... when April rolls around" means April 1, 2014. Only people who have enrolled before that date will be counted.
• "... many millions" means at least 4 million people.
• People will be counted if the enrolled via the federal or state exchanges.
• People will not be counted if they enrolled in Medicaid as part of that expansion in some states.
• People will be counted if they are young adults under the age of 24, who are remaining with/returning to their parents' insurance.
• People will not be counted if they got as far as registering and selecting a plan, but did not actually complete the enrollment process.
• The official estimate can be taken at face value, but if there are mainstream media reports of enrollments succeeding on the exchange website, but then failing on the back-end, (e.g., due to invalid or incorrect 834s), the number of enrollees affected by these problems will be subtracted from the official estimate, unless it is explicitly clear that those so affected are not being included in the official estimate.

Sound fair?

You're saying at least four million will be enrolled in a plan from exchanges by April 2014? I think it will be at least four million. Maybe over ten.

ETA: we need to agree on what happens if they delay everything by X amount of time.

 

[MattusMaximus]

So... I haven't seen anyone here complaining about how much Healthcare.gov sucks for quite some time now.

They must be too busy shopping there for insurance

 

[Newtons Bit]

So... I haven't seen anyone here complaining about how much Healthcare.gov sucks for quite some time now.

They must be too busy shopping there for insurance

That's not very skeptical. I stopped trying for several weeks because it never worked.

Let's see if it works now...

"Important: An unexpected error occurred when we tried to verify your information. Please wait and try again later."

Nope. Still not working.

 

[Robrob]

That's not very skeptical. I stopped trying for several weeks because it never worked.

Let's see if it works...

"Important: An unexpected error occurred when we tried to verify your information. Please wait and try again later."

Nope. Still not working.

Strange, I was able to navigate it without problem earlier this weekend. Maybe the issue is on your side of the connection?

 

[MattusMaximus]

That's not very skeptical. I stopped trying for several weeks because it never worked.

Let's see if it works now...

"Important: An unexpected error occurred when we tried to verify your information. Please wait and try again later."

Nope. Still not working.

Did you try any of the other methods, like calling them on the phone? They provide different options on the front page of the site.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Did you try any of the other methods, like calling them on the phone? They provide different options on the front page of the site.

I might get around to doing that eventually.

In the meantime: the website still sucks.

 

[Ziggurat]

Did you try any of the other methods, like calling them on the phone? They provide different options on the front page of the site.

You know that when you call them up, you're basically just getting someone else to use the website for you, right? The people on the other end of the phone don't have some other computer system they can access, they're going through the exact same website you are.

 

[theprestige]

Wait, why don't I count? I enrolled in a plan that only exists because of Obamacare. My wife has a preexisting condition and couldn't get coverage before, except through the state high risk pool, which frankly sucked and was expensive. Thanks to Obama, we now will both have gold level coverage. Because we make too much to qualify for subsidies, we didn't go through the exchange.

Why shouldn't people like me count?

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I see I wasn't clear: I completely agree that people who enroll in Obamacare regardless of whether or not they enroll via an exchange, should be counted.

The only reason not to count those people would be if MattusMaximus's prediction is that "many millions" will enroll through the exchanges. I guess it's kind of ambiguous, but at least now you know how I'm interpreting it. I apologize for the confusion.

You're saying at least four million will be enrolled in a plan from exchanges by April 2014? I think it will be at least four million. Maybe over ten.

ETA: we need to agree on what happens if they delay everything by X amount of time.

Enrolled in a plan by any means, unless MattusMaximus clarifies that he was predicting exchange enrollments only (in which case, we'd have to further clarify whether exchange enrollments over the phone count).

I guess it depends what you mean by "delay". As long as the system is still accepting enrollments, the clock is still ticking. If Congress or the White House decides to close enrollment for X amount of time, to fix the problems, the clock is still ticking. Any other scenario, I'd probably scrap the prediction and move on.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I see I wasn't clear: I completely agree that people who enroll in Obamacare regardless of whether or not they enroll via an exchange, should be counted.

The only reason not to count those people would be if MattusMaximus's prediction is that "many millions" will enroll through the exchanges. I guess it's kind of ambiguous, but at least now you know how I'm interpreting it. I apologize for the confusion.

Appreciated. I also notice that you would exclude people who are currently on what I call Crap Plans, who would stick with their insurance companies but agree to upgrade to a better plan that once again, only exists because of Obamacare.

They also would not use the exchanges.

So I think the more relevant metrics would be twofold.

1. The decrease or increase in the number of uninsured.
2. The decrease or increase of the number of people with real insurance vs. Crap Plans.

But it's your wager. You guys can bet on whatever you like.

 

[theprestige]

Here's my list, with your comments and my responses.

Here's your list, with my comments.

• "... when April rolls around" means April 1, 2014. Only people who have enrolled before that date will be counted. Looks good.
• "... many millions" means at least 4 million people. Looks good.

• 
  Looks good.
  
  

  [*] People will be counted if the enrolled via the federal or state exchanges. Looks good, but is incomplete; see Ubabogie's comment above.

  Agreed. I've addressed Unabogie's comment. In more complete form:
  
  • People will be counted if they enrolled in Obamacare via the federal or state exchanges, or by any other means (phone, write-in, etc.).
  
  

  [*] People will not be counted if they enrolled in Medicaid as part of that expansion in some states. Does not look good. The Medicaid expansion is part of the ACA.

  Presumably Medicaid already has a perfectly cromulent enrollment system in place. Enrolling people in that program should be no great feat. MattusMaximus may want to trumpet it as some great crowning achievement, but I don't.
  
  How about a compromise? If, come April 1, MattusMaximus needs Medicaid enrollments, in order to put his numbers over the top, his prediction will be considered successful with an asterisk.
  
  

  [*] People will be counted if they are young adults under the age of 24, who are remaining with/returning to their parents' insurance. Looks good.

  Looks good.
  
  

  [*] People will not be counted if they got as far as registering and selecting a plan, but did not actually complete the enrollment process. Does not look good. People may have been on the exchanges to see what was available, then got coverage another way.

  Good point. Since we're in agreement that people enrolling via other methods will be counted, it would be improper to count them twice. In any case, I remain convinced that it would be improper to count unpurchased shopping cart items at all.
  
  Given the clarification on Unabogie's comment, I think this point looks good as is.
  
  

  [*] The official estimate can be taken at face value, but if there are mainstream media reports of enrollments succeeding on the exchange website, but then failing on the back-end, (e.g., due to invalid or incorrect 834s), the number of enrollees affected by these problems will be subtracted from the official estimate, unless it is explicitly clear that those so affected are not being included in the official estimate. I think the number we should be looking at is the number of people who now have medical coverage but did not prior to the opening of the exchanges. It may have to be adjusted downwards a bit to account for the fact some people would have taken out insurance on their own and have been eligible despite the ACA. But that might be only 1% or 2% of the total.

  I think the number we should be looking at is the number of people the administration claims to have enrolled through the system the administration implemented, less the number who completed the enrollment process but were not actually enrolled due to system or process breakdowns.
  
  I think this point looks good as is.
  
  

  One thing that possibly can't be measured is how many people now have real coverage as opposed to those who had a plan that would have left them high and dry when a real medical emergency hit. They won't show up in the raw numbers of how many more people have a medical insurance plan on April 1, 2014 than did on October 1, 2013, because they already had (really lousy) insurance on October 1.

  I understand MattusMaximus to be primarily making a prediction about the administration's implementation of Obamacare, and their success at enrolling people in coverage via that implementation. Therefore, I'm interested in measuring the success of that prediction in terms of how many people actually enroll via that implementation, rather than how many people have coverage that meets some arbitrary threshold of "good enough".

 

[Newtons Bit]

I think the best way to calculate the number of people "enrolled by ACA" is to compare the total number of people uninsured next year vs the total number of uninsured this year.

It's probably fair to remove remove Medicaid enrollments from both sides of the equation for certain topics (such as determining the success of the exchanges and individual mandate), but it should be included for others (such as the net number of people covered).

 

[ehcks]

You know that when you call them up, you're basically just getting someone else to use the website for you, right? The people on the other end of the phone don't have some other computer system they can access, they're going through the exact same website you are.

But they're using a different computer, one that has already worked on that website before. They also know how to navigate the website, because that's all they do.

So they lack personal errors, and computer errors, which leaves only actual problems with the website. So it's kinda strange that they're not having all the same problems as others are...

 

[Ziggurat]

But they're using a different computer, one that has already worked on that website before. They also know how to navigate the website, because that's all they do.

So they lack personal errors, and computer errors, which leaves only actual problems with the website. So it's kinda strange that they're not having all the same problems as others are...

What makes you so certain that they aren't?

 

[daenku32]

It takes millions to show that it works, but just one loudmouth on the news to claim it doesn't.

It's like that joke about the village hero that was caught with the goat just that ONE time.

Now I do know that my State is both refusing to expand Medicaid and suing to prevent subsidies on the exchanges, so it's not like there isn't some active sabotaging going on to worsen the customer experience.

 

[Newtons Bit]

But they're using a different computer, one that has already worked on that website before. They also know how to navigate the website, because that's all they do.

So they lack personal errors, and computer errors, which leaves only actual problems with the website. So it's kinda strange that they're not having all the same problems as others are...

Really? You think there's something wrong with my computer that is preventing me from accessing a website?

 

[bonzombiekitty]

Really? You think there's something wrong with my computer that is preventing me from accessing a website?

To be fair, it's a possibility. I have to deal with issues that seem restricted to a single computer every now and then. The source of the problems have been stuff like...

... the browser using a cached, out of date file (the most common issue).
... our cloud provider having something messed up on a firewall config that was blocking the computer for no particular reason.
... people using no-script and not realizing they have blocked important javascript.
... people having a messed up value in an cookie. Cookie got weird value due to an old, fixed, bug but cookie never got replaced.
... people having a virus causing the SQL injection attempts on forms.
... user using really, REALLY outdated web browser.

Granted, for most of those issues there are potential server-side fixes or preventative measures. But it's still a possibility that just using a different computer will work.

 

[Morrigan]

Really? You think there's something wrong with my computer that is preventing me from accessing a website?

Yes, I believe we call that a "code 18" in technical terms.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, I believe we call that a "code 18" in technical terms.

Or we could make the assumption that a website that has been so flawed with bugs and problems that it made national news for weeks still has some problems...

Nah, that's not possible. Everyone who has problems now must be a moron when it comes to computers.

 

[plague311]

Or we could make the assumption that a website that has been so flawed with bugs and problems that it made national news for weeks still has some problems...

Nah, that's not possible. Everyone who has problems now must be a moron when it comes to computers.

I don't think moron, but it maybe that they aren't properly troubleshooting their own PC's because they EXPECT the website to be the problem. As has been stated in this thread there are several instances where ongoing projects\upgrades to a website will require you to clear the cache to get the upgraded information. Otherwise you're merely just looping to that cached infromation. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to try a few different browsers or even a few different PC's.